By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
SC on vote-buying: Candidate personally gave
money or material consideration
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualified Noel E. Rosal, Carmen Geraldine Rosal, and Jose Alfonso V. Barizo from the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections. The disqualifications stemmed from allegations of vote-buying and illegal use of public funds. Joseph San Juan Armogila filed the initial disqualification petitions, alleging violations of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). The COMELEC initially granted Armogila’s petitions, leading to the candidates’ disqualification.
The Court found that COMELEC erred in holding Carmen guilty of vote-buying, stating that the evidence presented was based on weak assumptions and circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed the COMELEC’s En Banc decision regarding Carmen Geraldine Rosal, determining that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it found her guilty of vote-buying under the same section.
The Court emphasized that to be disqualified for vote-buying under Section 68(a) of the OEC, it must be proven that the candidate personally gave money or material consideration. The act of giving must be for the purpose of influencing, inducing, or corrupting voters or public officials performing electoral functions.
The allegations and evidence against Noel, Carmen, and Barizo did not concretely and directly show that they personally initiated, controlled, or supervised the cash assistance payouts for the purpose of influencing, inducing, or corrupting the recipients to vote for them.
The Court found that COMELEC’s conclusion that “gratitude is ordinarily and naturally accorded to the giver” rested on weak assumptions and circumstantial evidence.
The administrative proceeding requires substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The Court noted that the payouts were continuations of a program of the City Social Welfare and Development Office (CSWDO) that started before the election period. There was no allegation or proof that the petitioners used their own personal funds. One cannot give what one does not own.
The Court found it incongruous for COMELEC to arrive at opposite conclusions about the guilt of the three petitioners under the same provision, Section 68(a) of the OEC, since the allegations of vote-buying were anchored on the same Facebook post, text messages, and affidavits. The Court stated that there was no substantial evidence to support a finding of vote-buying. (Rosal v. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 264125, 266775, 266796 & 269274, (22 October 2024))